...... First i will say thank you to this young man for his patriotism, and protecting my freedoms. BUT
he like all who hold so dearly to blind faith patriotism always ask how?
So my responce to this young man is this.
How the hell are we going to find that part out when all those claiming to be experts on the offical side run and hide, and refuse to be part of a debate. Adding further where the hell are all the major media on this story of the century? I've worked construction for thirty five years. As a welder fabricator, and iron worker. I've also worked underground with explosives. 110 ten stories at damn near freefall? BS !
If it smells like shit, i don't have to taste it to be convinced.
P.S. Next time why don't you get your experts to come with you for a debate? Also while your at it let's see if you can get some of the major media to attend. Yes this is a challenge. Good luck. You will have a better chance of getting into a snowball fight in Death Valley.

Nonetheless, Greene had no business going on about a poor showing when we don't get proper notice. We never had "a week's notice". We had 2-3 hours. You know as well as I do that there is no point in posting that there is going to be a 9/11 radio show... when we don't know who is going to be on it!

I sent an email on Monday trying to find out the guest list.

No response.

You followed up on Tuesday.

No response.

That's crappy PR, and that's the bottom line. That is NOT the fault of the 9/11 Truthers, it just isn't.

And what happened last Thursday? There has been no explanation about that. Everybody that tuned in got left at the altar, and that's a fact. I had to pull the post off the front page because it was a waste.

we moved so fast Rep . . next week will be better. I don't think you could have done anything more or better given the circumstances and everyone here should be grateful for all sweat and blood you put into this effort! If we can all collectively start moving the stream meters at radio shows, then we have power. With broadcast radio, there's really no way to tell who's listening. Internet radio you know how many people are listening, when they drop off et . . .

I totally agree with this. This month of truth seems scantily put together to say the least. He complained about numbers and if his show is going to go on if the numbers aren't there, yet his organization and promotion efforts just aren't there.

His tone and approach though makes me suspicious at times. (Air America's release of Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy does not speak well of their operations).

However, I'm glad I got to share the following thoughts at Greene's CLOUT site:

Thank you for covering this, Richard! Our country is in trouble!

The world was treated to a complete PsyOp by the ruling elite on 9/11 – the money-interests who see themselves above and beyond allegiance to nation states. Nothing new under the sun.

The effect of the theatrics of September 11th on the masses amounted to a planned psychological pressure and release scenario....with the pressure of the TV drama of the towers being blown up on live television and the immediate release (relief) of being told so quickly that the culprits were SOLELY al qaeda. Something is VERY wrong with what has been paraded as the official story.

A major problem is that the ruling elite claimed "incompetence" and "ignorance" of many leads beforehand and then suddenly had many important answers when the events happened. Ridiculous.

The other circumstantial evidence is astounding. Criminal conspiracies happen all the time and the American people (and people of Planet Earth) have not been given PROOF on behalf of the official story.

Much evidence and facts point to a cover-up of massive proportions.

9/11 was necessary for the already-planned post 9-11 wars and social policies. Not hard to figure out.

Unfortunately, your guest John Brown exudes arrogance and does nothing to support the official account.

I only know that John Brown is a former marine but I'd like to find out what his background is.

Kevin Barrett just did a great job of calmly explaining how John Brown is way off the mark and out of bounds.. But, I'd like to know more info about John Brown and why he of all people is put out in public to defend what cannot be defended with truth?

Didn't they try to do that? Didn't Philip Zelikow try to do that with the 9/11 Commission's report? Didn't we hear the words Iraq, 9/11, 9/11, Iraq, 9/11, Iraq, 9/11, 9/11, Iraq, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein, 9/11, 9/11 over and over and over again? Didn't a ridiculous portion of the country think that some of hijackers were Iraqis? Didn't a ridiculous portion of the country think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11? Didn't a ridiculous portion of our poor soldiers serving in Iraq think Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Do you want to bet that there are STILL people in this country that think Iraq had something to do with 9/11?

Basically what I'm saying is, they DID blame Iraq for the 9/11 attacks. And OBL/KSM/The Taliban/Afghanistan.

There was some effort to encourage the view that Saddam was behind 9/11--e.g., a rumored meeting between Atta and an Iraqi official in Prague--but in order to sell their invasion plans, they simply had to keep suggesting that, even if the Taliban and al Qaeda hadn't really been helped by/working for Saddam on 9/11, we couldn't take the risk that they might, in future, aquire WMD courtesy of Iraq's allegedly ongoing WMD programs and use them against the U.S.

Glad to hear that there was more and extensive coverage of 9/11 on the radio and that the person debating was openly admitting not to be an engineer and speculating. I hope to listen to the full interview later.

That's too bad that Pentagon speculation will be covered next week.

Here's what a book review says of author Peter Tiradera's book on the Pentagon, which I haven't read --

"THE PENTAGON ANALYSIS adds important new detail, especially regarding the Pentagon attack. In so doing, it buttresses the arguments that what hit the Pentagon was not a 757, that efforts to create artificial evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory was systematically planted, that photos were retouched to hide conspicuous evidence of what really happened and that there was a second flying object (this one definitely a plane) involved, quite possibly in directing the flying object that hit the Pentagon. The author also introduces evidence that bombs may have been planted in the Pentagon to enhance the visual effects of the damage. Admittedly, the style adopted by this author tends toward the sensational, as compared to the highly restrained, empirical approach favored by Dr. Griffin."http://www.amazon.com/review/R1W3WIQIR95FDY

Bombs? Possibly. But a major problem is that there is no evidence outside of people smelling cordite -- when all you have is a smell, you have only speculation. When we are advocating speculation, we are exposed as mere "conspiracy theorists". There is also *zero* evidence that anything was "planted" at the site -- regardless of how a piece of fuselage or anything else *seems* odd or hard to believe, there is still zero scientific or hard evidence that anything was planted or faked.

That show is likely going to be awful.

For the easy refutations of most of the Pentagon errors and claims, please see:

"Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence. Those errors include the following.

* 'A Boeing 757 could not have executed the attack maneuver'
* 'Eyewitnesses saw a small plane'
* 'The Pentagon attack left no aircraft debris'
* 'Aircraft crashes always leave large debris'
* 'The Pentagon attack left only a small impact hole'
* 'The wings of a 757 should have been visible outside the Pentagon'
* 'Engine parts from the Pentagon crash don't match a 757'
* 'Standing columns in the Pentagon impact hole preclude the crash of a 757'
* 'The C-ring punch-out hole was made by a warhead'
* 'Flight-path obstacles can't be reconciled with the crash of a 757'
* 'Only A Small Plane or Missile Could Have Caused Pentagon Damage'
* 'The Pentagon Attack Plane was a Boeing 737 Instead of a Boeing 757'"http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

Bob Bowman has previously supported no Boeing at the Pentagon, but I don't know what his position is now. It seems unfair to only represent one side when the fact is that the movement is highly divided on this issue.

I have seen no evidence that a Boeing 757 slammed into the Pentagon . . not saying it didn't happen . . but after researching this extensively, that is my opinion and feel pretty safe with it.

The trick is to turn "different plane" into "no plane" then throw in "didn't land on the moon" and mix in a little "reptilian people" just to cloud the fish bowl up enough to allow the casual observer to remain safe and warm in their thick coat of denial.

....story is not fully told is that how does ANYTHING hit the PENTAGON 34 minutes AFTER the SECOND plane hit the Twins with Andrews AFB 10-15 miles away (not to mention any ground-to-air missiles it undoubtedly possesses). This combined with Mineta's testimony is irrefutable evidence of a standdown, IMO.

And . . . the main problem with the Pentagon no-Boeing theory is that all they have to do is show the video of FL77 hitting -- a video which they have and we don't -- and then that sucking hole takes down everything else we've worked for with it via a PR campaign to tank the entire series of unanswered questions and existing findings as being baseless --

"The "tin-foil hat" people thought no plane hit the Pentagon America, but guess what!?"

There is nothing like this about the demolitions, or many of the other areas of unanswered questions.

Only the Pentagon issue has this potential time-bomb attached to it.

The demolitions prove insider involvement so that issue is already being carefully built up by scientists and researchers. We don't need a lot of public and hyped speculation to try to "prove" something we cannot about the Pentagon. Almost all of the claims around the Pentagon are about hype and mystery and debate, not science and hard facts.

The only solid Pentagon stuff has been the white jet, and that proves nothing about no-Boeing, nor does it prove any insider involvement -- it only suggests that they could have been keeping an eye on things or were protecting themselves, or whatever they want to say (many possible explanations, and "national security" is really all they need to say, as they do to everything), but has nothing there to show complicity or involvement in the attacks, only that they were monitoring and didn't want people to know.

And when they dump the video of AA77 on the public they can also say "and the flight data recorders were off because of such and such glitch" and that's the end of that entire story.

From an email I just sent to Richard and others with minor edits -- some background info

The rate at which thermite reacts depends largely on the SIZE of the aluminum and iron-oxide powders.

1. Commercial thermite (that we have studied) has large particles and reacts as an incendiary. Add sulfur in amounts of your choosing, and the molten-iron end product will cut more readily through steel -- and stay molten at orange-hot temps. This material is the ONLY explanation I have found that makes any physical sense for the orange-flowing material that emerged and flowed from WTC2 just minutes before the building's destruction. If you have any other explanation, supported by facts/evidence, pls let me know. Note that steel and iron are SOLIDS at yellow-hot temps, solid at orange-hot then also. Iron PLUS SULFUR (at about 30% sulfur) is LIQUID at 988 C, orange-hot, and above.

2. Nano-thermite = Super-thermite is formed when the Al and iron-oxide powders are ultra-fine, about 100 nanometers and less. What we find in the red chips is aluminum and iron oxide particles in sizes less than about xx nanometers (not for public release until we publish -- you can just say for now that the particles are very small). This material, nano-thermite also called super-thermite, reacts EXPLOSIVELY. Google on nano-thermite (or super-thermite) as I invited John Brown to do, and you will find that it is a high-tech explosive form of thermite.

Best wishes,

Steve

PS -- steel in the WTC provided an enormous heat-sink for the heat from the WTC fires. I never said that steel was an excellent heat conductor. It is not. But compared to insulators like glass, plastics, wood, it is a good heat conductor. If you have ever held a pin and heated the end with a match, you know that it does not take long until you cannot hold the other end of the pin. Scale this up to the beams and fires at the WTC... it remains true that the enormous interconnected structure at the WTC would serve to "wick away heat" from the steel directly heated by the fire. This is called "thermal transport" and can be calculated.

PS2 -- Lezlee and I are moving to a rural town (Spring City area) in Utah, which is where I was contacted by Kevin Barrett about the Air America show last night. He contacted me about four hours before the show. He did not tell me about the debate format, although I see that he emailed me about this before the show -- but I did not have email contact in Spring City!
So that format was a surprise to me... I regret that my cell phone contact was less than stellar... not much I could do about that. Comments welcomed. I thought Richard did a good job. I hope my comments on nano-thermite (see point 2 above) came through, along with comments about the two peer-reviewed papers we have which have been accepted for publication, a third in the process now -- and more papers that we are writing incidentally.

Thanks for the clarification, Prof. Jones- clear information does get through. I'm glad you and Richard brought up the fact that bomb sniffing dogs aren't trained to look for thermite (since it is not what is typically used to destroy things), a simple point, but one that needed to be stated if only to stop the lame argument from Mr. Brown. Richard stepped in to bolster your efforts, so I was glad to hear you both work together to build your case.

A few quotes from the paper:
"To date nanostructured
energetic materials are largely unknowns with the exception of nanometer-sized
reactive powders now being produced at a number of laboratories. We have
invented a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically
explosives,
propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. The ease of
this synthetic approach along with the inexpensive, stable, and benign nature of
the metal precursors and solvents permit large-scale syntheses to be carried out.
This approach can be accomplished using low cost processing methods. We will
describe here, for the first time, this new synthetic route for producing metal oxide-
based pyrotechnics."

"As an example energetic nanocomposites of Fe,O, [iron oxide] and metallic
aluminum [i.e., nano-thermite] are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and can be
readily ignited. Production and characterization data of these novel energetic
materials will be presented."

The paper was published in 2000, with references to this "novel" high-tech, nano-thermite form of thermite going back to 1998 --- well before 9/11/2001.

I am curious. How does thermite/thermate and its variations stay applied to the surface of the columns when its ignited? What is to keep it from melting downward on the column non-uniformly? It makes sense that the charges would be applied at an angle as other cutter charges are often deployed, but how does a molten reaction stay viably attached to the surface it is supposed to be attacking if it applied perpendicularly?

How would a series of thermite/thermate charges be set off reliably? Most thermite reactions I have seen require a very hot starting agent and a modest to moderate exposure to direct contact.

I presume that most of the charges were either timed or remote switches, but it doesn't explain how the they started a thermite sequence. Can you elaborate?

Also, have you seen any evidence of explosiveness of thermate/thermite which would correspond to the observed visuals of the blasts? I have seen the evidence of the melting metal dripping from the towers, but at that point, the reaction has begun. Where does the explosiveness come from other than more traditional explosives?

If you made the V shaped thermate containment vessel out of ceramic with a thin steel plate on side facing the column, and detonate it using a wireless detonator, there would be no wires and the ceramic would be destroyed in the collapse.

It could be held to the column with magnets on the outside of the ceramic. When the column melted beyond the ceramic, they would be destroyed too.

I promise for the next show that I will email our 9/11 Meetup group. Give us a bit to get organized on this and keep giving us shows like this one: a debate.

Unfortunately, Mr. Brown was no different than the run-of-the-mill deniers we meet every week when giving out 9/11 Truth literature downtown. Underneath virtually all of their statements is the refrain: "I don't want to believe this happened. I *refuse* to believe this happened."

That mental and emotional block causes the kind of argumentation that Brown displayed:

"bait and switch"--offering up an argument and when it is countered, changing the argument.

"ad hominem"--embarrassing and uncomfortable that these distinguised professional like Gage and Jones were subjected to this on this forum, but part of the process.

and so on.

I just had this experience on Daily Kos. And the comments/replies to me there followed these same patterns that allow the user to continue a state of denial. Another clear pattern was that the longer the debate went on, the more emotional the denier became. That emotionalism when the debate was being lost is also highly typical since there is nothing rational left to support their denial.

I don't think there is anything else to do but continue reaching out to everyone. We've seen so much change in just two years. And the truth is winning.